Last night, the Range talked with Sylvia Campoy, the Mendoza representative for the district’s decades old desegregation complaint (Fisher-Mendoza v.Tucson Unified School District) after last night’s TUSD governing board meeting, where she said she was floating and even turned around to say thank you to the board as she left the board room.
Why, you ask?
One of last night’s items for the board’s regular agenda was, “Fisher-Mendoza v. Tucson Unified School District — Approval of or Objection to the Proposed Unitary Status Plan/Consent Decree.”
When it came up, board member Mark Stegeman read a board resolution approving of the unitary status plan. What he was referring to was the latest incarnation of the plan put together by deseg special master Willis Hawley and released Monday, Dec. 10.
However, Stegeman also wanted to add to the agenda the district’s objection, as well as a list of other objections.
Board member Adelita Grijalva said during the meeting that she would really like to vote yes on the deseg plan, because there are a lot of items in the plan she agrees with, but she could not do that if the objection to culturally relevant core courses remained in Stegeman’s motion before the board.
Board president Miguel Cuevas asked Stegeman if he was willing to split his motion in half, first bringing forth a motion on the deseg plan before them, then bringing second motion on the objections.
Stegeman agreed. The board voted 5-0 to approve the unitary status plan — keep in mind the plan, with objections still filed with U.S. District Court Judge David Bury remain and the plan must go through final approval before Bury. That’s the next step.
Stegeman then brought the second motion regarding the objections; namely, the objection that the TUSD legal team filed last month against the MAS classes being returned as core curriculum classes for literature and social studies.
That resolution was defeated 3-2, with Grijalva, Cuevas and Alexandre Sugiyama voting no, and Michael Hicks and Stegeman voting yes.
But later, after most people in the board room left for the evening — it was a long board meeting that went past 11 p.m. after a long executive session — Stegeman brought the second motion on the objections up for a revote. Hicks asked to go into executive session and when the board came out the second motion returned to the board. This time, the board’s vote against the objections was unanimous — 5-0 against, with Hicks and Stegeman changing their vote.
Regarding the first vote, Campoy told the Range it was important became of the message it sends to Bury. “The court is going to know that the vote was 5-0, because let’s say it was a 3-2 vote or split, it wouldn’t have been as strong,” she said. “It’s much more likely the judge is going to back us.”
Why the public change in heart?
“I honestly believe that all of the studies have had a cumulative impact on those three board members. Each of the studies have shown that these courses have had a significant impact on all students — achievement and graduation rates. That’s finally reached the level of consciousness. … Something good is going on with these courses. A lot has to be attributed to that,” Campoy said.
“Also people showing up at all of these forums … all of these board meetings saying, ‘We want these courses,’” we want these teachers.
But while MAS supporters and others like Campoy are flying high last night and this morning, others looked at Grijalva’s Facebook status update posted late last night:
Unfortunately the TUSD board vote tonight regarding Culturally Relevant Courses only voted down an ADDITIONAL objection to CRC’s as core classes. The initial objection filed by TUSD still in effect. This issue will be rectified at 1st meeting with new board in January.
So here we are, and where is that? The Range is making a few calls and will have more on the deseg plan this afternoon.
After the jump take a look at a video from Three Sonorans on last night’s meeting and vote.
This article appears in Dec 6-12, 2012.
There will be a lot of dissapointed individual’s in the state, because of the boards decision. We all must come to the understanding that America is in fact a nation of immigrants. In the case of the “Mexican, American” most of which are of native American lineage, have weathered discrimination, and racisim in the state of Arizona, since the early frontier days. To accept their culture,as a part of our nation’s history, will be put to rest, when those who oppose equality, are denied the right to do so.
I would disagree in saying that most Mexican Americans are of Native American descent. Many Mexicans have the blood of indigenous people, but many of these native peoples lived primarily in areas south of Arizona, such as Mexico, and even Central America, in centuries past. Plus, Mexicans have a significant portion of European ancestry. I believe that the vast majority of nuevo immigrants to the U.S, over the past half-century, traditionally come from areas to the south of the United States, without ancestral ties.
There are American Indian groups in Arizona, and which have been here for a while (thousands of years), but most Mexicans can’t claim ancestry to these more northern groups.
I would agree that courses should be taught that talk about Native Americans, Mexican Americans . . . and many others. I’m part American Indian, and Italian, but I don’t see any special classes that focus specifically on these two groups. Being part Native American, I find it offensive that Mexicans lay claim to the “native” label, yet come from people in central America.
I honestly feel that some Latino activists talk-up “racism” and incorrect ideas about ancestral heritage to, in essence, make US citizens feel that they must accept illegal immigrants from Mexico into their communities. Well, what about legal immigrants from Africa, Europe, other hispanic countries . . . if they came here legally then they have more of a right to be here than Mexicans who entered illegally. The US is cosmopolitan, and should enforce her borders to prevent illegal immigration.
I think we all know that thing said in MAS classes were hateful towards whites. It shouldn’t be tolerated to have classes where white students segergate themselves and discuss the higher hispanic crime rate, and how affirmative action has hurt a lot of whites, and asians, over decades past. All true facts, yet you can see how facts can be twisted to hurt a specific people.
Since such classes are, rightfully, illegal. I doubt that MAS activists will get the politically charged classes they want, though I am all for classes which talk about the history of the southwest, which undoubtedly will involve discussion of Old Mexico.
Thank you Mari for following this story as closely as you have. As a committed “Board watcher”who was there until the last moment of last night’s meeting, I really appreciate your attention to detail. The consequences of the revote were not at all clear, but I have confidence that the new board members will rectify the situation. Thanks for bein’ on it!
Franz, there are a quarter million undocumented Irish immigrants in the Boston area alone, yet we never hear them called “illegal.” Don’t tell me there’s not an element of racism involved in the issue of Mexican immigrants.
Chuck you got your numbers wrong, one source said 8,000 illegal Irish in Boston, and they should be deported, as should all illegals. (http://www.irishlobbyusa.org/boston.php). There are also tons of illegal immigrants in the boroughs in New York (I lived there as a kid), that nobody is doing anything about.
By contrast, there are millions of illegal immigrants from Mexico, and other countries, living in the United States, so numbers-wise, it is easy to see why you see more about hispanics being deported.
I don’t deny there is an element of racism, but many Mexicans look ostensibly white, and I think it is more of a cultural thing. If there were suddenly 20 million illegal immigrants from Germany in the US, yes, there would be ethnic strife, especially if the German immigrants choose to push their own culture above that of their new country. Imagine german students demanding “German American Studies”, and having them gush over german curriculum which discussed how Germany was unfairly beaten down during the two world wars.
Even if some harbor racist attitudes towards Latinos (which Latinos may harbor toward whites), it really doesn’t have much to do with immigration and is not a justification for illegal immigration. If you come here illegally, you should be deported, plain and simple. The US can’t accomodate the hundreds of millions of folks who want to be US citizens without the country becoming a refugee camp.
I am pro legal immigration as the US often gets the cream of the crop from other countries, when it is done legally. The US needs diversity, not just tens of millions of people from Mexico who come here illegally.
Franz, If an event occurs, regardless of whom it involved, and it happened within the boundaries of the United States, should we considered it to be a part of American History? In other words, if it just so happened, that it didn’t involve Davy Crockett, Ben Franklin, or any other well know-en patriot, should we be bias, and exclude such an event of ever becoming a part our nations History ?